Sinning Chritian's moral code as "irrational" as an atheists code

[Trantor]

For the sake of concretness consider a Christian who believes that there is an Absolute Morality as defined by God and revealed to Man in whatever way the particular sect of his/her faith believes..the literal word of God as expressed in the Bible, a variation on it, whatever.

Consider also an atheist who believes there is no Absolute Moral code.

It has been argued that the atheist's morality is irrational because the code followed is not an absolute code and because it is irrational is worthless and incomprehension expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists consequentially. ("Why not just go out and rape women" argument)

Now consider the Chritian. Humans sin, in their belief, because that is the nature of Man. No one is perfect but they believe one should aspire to follow the absolute Moral code of Christianity. But human are weak, frail etc and do sin.

Consider then the sinning Christian. Aware of the sin, knowing they sin. They will not disobey all the moral laws of their religion but will sin nonetheless..some big some small. Assume all are truly sorry and confess, repent whatever. I am not talking about hypocrosy, just human fallibilty.

While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.

So the ACTUAL moral code of Christian sinners is not the Absolute code. They somehow pick out a subset of laws they are prepared to follow(albeit reluctantly, perhaps). The set of non-absolute laws followed by the inevitably-sinning Christian has no more a basis in God than the set of non-absolute laws followed adopted by the atheist.

Why, then, do the irrational, no meaning arguments not apply to sinning Christians?

[chomsky53]

you say this "It has been argued that the atheist's morality is irrational because the code followed is not an absolute code and because it is irrational is worthless and incomprehension expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists consequentially. ("Why not just go out and rape women" argument)" what does that mean i don't understand
"it is irrational is worthless and incomprehension expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists consequentially" i think there is some sort of typo. given that what do you think falls out of your argument (the whole thign not just the quoted part) if it goes off?

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
you say this "It has been argued that the atheist's morality is irrational because the code followed is not an absolute code and because it is irrational is worthless and incomprehension expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists consequentially. ("Why not just go out and rape women" argument)" what does that mean i don't understand

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry..very slapdash.

It has been argued that the atheist's morality is irrational because the code followed is not an absolute code (God given). Because it is irrational it is then said to be worthless. Incomprehension is then expressed that any moral code is followed by atheists in view the worthlessness of their non-absolute code. ("Why not just go out and rape women" argument)"

[purnell]

I think you've done it. Now we can get on with... whatever it is we're doing.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I'm not buying.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I'm not buying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of the part(s) do you not agree with?

1)While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in...

Don't Christians believe all Man is fallible..original sin and all that?

2)... but will be breaking some laws..

Those laws that aren't obeyed are surely broken?

3) ..there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.

???

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you've done it. Now we can get on with... whatever it is we're doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are clearly attempting to span all dementia. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
)While being fallible, the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in...

Don't Christians believe all Man is fallible..original sin and all that?

2)... but will be breaking some laws..

Those laws that aren't obeyed are surely broken?

3) ..there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.



[/ QUOTE ]

You can't get to #3 from #1. Just because someone doesn't live up to a set moral code doesn't mean that code is non-existant. No moral codes should be broken, the fact that they are is not the codes fault. It's not the fault of whomever set the codes-it's the fault of who's not following them.

[bearly]

yes, there are a lot of questions being begged in (what i think to be ) the op's exposition...............b

[Peter666]

"Why, then, do the irrational, no meaning arguments not apply to sinning Christians?"

Simply because there is a hierarchy of sin. Some sins are regarded as worse than others, thus making sin relative, not absolute. A sin against the first commandment is much worse than a sin against the tenth commandment.

Also, the punishment for sin is not absolute, but also relative. For the Catholics, a small sin does not land one in hell for eternity (an absolute) but gives you a stint in purgatory. A big sin will land you in hell, and many big unrepentant sins will give you a deeper place with even more suffering.

So sin, while being acknowledged as an absolute evil, comes in different degrees. A bucket full of water has more water than a glass full of water, but they are both full.

Atheists on the other hand are faced with an absolute: nothingness after death. Whether you are "good" or "bad" you are going to end up in the same place anyhow, so why give a sh*t about your actions? You should simply seek as much personal pleasure as possible while you can with no regard for how it effects others. Especially children in Africa.

[purnell]

It is impossible to live "without sin". That means it is impossible to adhere to God's Absolute Morality. So what are christians to do? Why, they follow their own relative moral compass, and then beg forgiveness for the times when their own moral judgement differs from The Word. But they still follow their own moral judgement in their actions, just like an atheist or a wiccan.

Funny, this is almost like responding to "no god = murder is ok" with "possibility of redemption = murder is ok".

[Trantor]

[quote
Atheists on the other hand are faced with an absolute: nothingness after death. Whether you are "good" or "bad" you are going to end up in the same place anyhow, so why give a sh*t about your actions? You should simply seek as much personal pleasure as possible while you can with no regard for how it effects others. Especially children in Africa.

[/ QUOTE ]

The simple answer is because we are wired up (ie our brains) to give a sh*t! We have no choice!

The comment that consequently atheist should maximise pleasure is, speaking as broadly as the statement was made, made, an elemnt of trith (IMHO) but one I won't argue with here (which does not mean I agree!) but bear in mind pleasure covers lots of thing and the attractiveness of one act may be offset by the lack or anticipated possible lack of pleasure that may also result from an act. The net pleasure equation could be said to lead to the actual actions carried out.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

None can be broken. The price for sin is death according to Romans 6:23. As soon as you or I sin even once we are judged guilty of the entire law (James 2:10). As you have pointed out, everybody sins (breaks the moral law)...Christians, atheists, wiccans, etc. There are no provisions for choosing which laws to break and still be OK. That is the whole point of redemption as articulated in the Bible. God accomplished for us what we never could. He became a man (Jesus of Nazareth) and fulfilled all of the requirements of the law. He lived a perfect life. We put our faith in him and two things happen: 1) he takes our sin upon himself and it is nailed to the cross and defeated and 2) we are granted (clothed in) his perfect righteousness. So when God looks at us he does not see the sin (it has been killed on the cross) he sees his Son's perfect righteousness that covers us.

The absolute moral law still exists and its purpose is to demonstrate to us our sin and lead us to the Solution (Jesus Christ).

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

None can be broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it impossible to break any part of a moral code, how do you believe a sin can be committed? Surely that is what sin is, breaking of a moral "law"?

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

None can be broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it impossible to break any part of a moral code, how do you believe a sin can be committed? Surely that is what sin is, breaking of a moral "law"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstood, or rather I was not as clear as I could have been. When I said that none can be broken I did not mean that it is impossible to break them. I meant that none can be broken without being judged guilty. There is no free pass. If you break the law, the price for your sin is death.

Hope that is clearer.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Why, they follow their own relative moral compass, and then beg forgiveness

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. How can there be more than one moral compass?

BTW I like the "logical" extrapolation of.
[ QUOTE ]
this is almost like responding to "no god = murder is ok" with "possibility of redemption = murder is ok".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a huge leap of faith in your reasoning.

[Peter666]

"The simple answer is because we are wired up (ie our brains) to give a sh*t! We have no choice!"

See, I don't believe that is true. The whole notion of being a rational creature is the ability to think abstractly and independantly of one's emotions. The emotions one faces when conducting an action are merely the products of environmental upbringing. Why is it that a Puritan will have a fit if they have to drink a beer, but a Catholic would have no moral problem whatsoever and take pleasure in it? Both are "religious."

One's conscience is formed over time and circumstances, it is not set in stone. Culture has a major effect.

This is what I find really weak and pathetic about Atheists: here they have this glorious opportunity to be truly free men, free of all inhibitions and able to explore whatever they want and do as they please with no permanent consequences - but instead they blow it all because they fear the judgement of others. They are full of pride.

Surely, if I were an Atheist, I would be having much, much more physical pleasure than I am currently having without having a deleterious effect on the sum total of life's pleasures.

[purnell]

water is wet = murder is ok

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I find really weak and pathetic about Atheists: here they have this glorious opportunity to be truly free men, free of all inhibitions and able to explore whatever they want and do as they please with no permanent consequences - but instead they blow it all because they fear the judgement of others. They are full of pride.


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, that is why I admire atheists.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]

Surely, if I were an Atheist, I would be having much, much more physical pleasure than I am currently having without having a deleterious effect on the sum total of life's pleasures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. The moral freedom to indulge in masturbation as desired could be the strongest argument yet for becoming an atheist! Or is it only immoral if the seed hits the graound for failure to position a tissue correctly? In which case masturbation with an extra thrill in that case...maybe a reason to become a Christian!

Oh by the way, there are rational reasons why men should masturbate regularly (absent sexual intercourse every day)

http://sexuality.about.com/b/a/080919.htm

Give me rational morality over an irrational God given moral law anytime!

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the Christian will, by assumption, be not be following the Absolute code they believe in but will be breaking some laws. How do they decide which ones to break: there is no absolute moral code on what moral laws can be broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

None can be broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it impossible to break any part of a moral code, how do you believe a sin can be committed? Surely that is what sin is, breaking of a moral "law"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstood, or rather I was not as clear as I could have been. When I said that none can be broken I did not mean that it is impossible to break them. I meant that none can be broken without being judged guilty. There is no free pass. If you break the law, the price for your sin is death.

Hope that is clearer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. You meant may not. (Johnny can steal the apple but he may not)

Your particular faith doesn't include salvation through repentance of sin, then? Tough one that, break the law and you pay the price of sin, death (by which I guess you mean no afterlife in the presence of God) no second chances.

I think you are in a minority of the theists never mind atheists with this one.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Your particular faith doesn't include salvation through repentance of sin, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. Repentance is the sinner turning from his sin while faith is him turning to Christ for salvation.

Hebrews 6:1 describes the elementary doctrine of Christ as "repentance from dead works and of faith toward God."

There is no saving faith without repentance.

[Peter666]

You could of at least said sex with a woman. That would be normal. But pleasuring yourself....yuck.